More stories

  • in

    Trump Administration Said to Drop Lawsuit Over Toxic Chemical

    The Trump administration plans to drop a federal lawsuit against a chemical manufacturer accused of releasing high levels of a likely carcinogen from its Louisiana plant, according to two people familiar with the plans.The government filed the lawsuit during the Biden administration after regulators determined that chloroprene emissions from the Denka Performance Elastomer plant were contributing to health concerns in an area with the highest cancer risk of any place in the United States.The 2023 lawsuit was among several enforcement actions taken by the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of poor and minority communities that have disproportionately borne the brunt of toxic pollution.The Denka plant is located in the predominantly Black community of LaPlace, La., in a region so dense with industrial facilities that it is known as “Cancer Alley.” Chloroprene is used to produce neoprene, a synthetic rubber that is found in automotive parts, hoses, beer cozies, orthopedic braces and electric cables.The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment. The agency intends to ask the United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana this week to dismiss the lawsuit, according to the two people familiar with the decision, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case.The lawsuit had given the neighboring community a measure of hope that pollution levels might finally come down, said Robert Taylor, a founder of Concerned Citizens of St John Parish, a community group.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    In Speech to Congress, Trump Is Expected to Boast About DOGE Cuts and Ukraine

    President Trump is expected to boast about his assault on the federal bureaucracy and his efforts to upend global relationships during an address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, even as his administration faces lawsuits over his domestic agenda and Europe rebukes him over his treatment of Ukraine.Addressing his largest television audience since his return to power, Mr. Trump is expected to speak about the speed with which he has pushed through reductions in border crossings, cuts to government through the Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, and a slew of executive orders. He is also expected to emphasize the need to pass his legislative agenda, which includes some $4 trillion in tax cuts.“He’s going to talk about the great things he’s done: The border’s secure, the waste he’s finding with DOGE,” said Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who speaks frequently with Mr. Trump. “He’s going to keep laying out his vision, where he wants the country to go.”For Mr. Trump, it will be a remarkable return to a chamber — and a prime-time, nationwide audience — he last addressed five years ago, before voters ousted him from office and replaced him with Joseph R. Biden Jr. Mr. Trump’s return has set in motion a rapid-fire series of actions designed to overturn decades of policy and diplomacy.During his first term, the president delivered an annual speech to Congress that included a mix of exaggerations and grievance-filled attacks on his enemies. He is poised to do the same again on Tuesday night, using one of the largest platforms that any modern president gets during his time in the Oval Office.Mr. Trump hinted on Monday that he might use the speech to extend his public feud with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine after the Oval Office blowup between the two leaders last week. Asked by a reporter whether a deal to share rare-earth minerals was still possible after the shouting, Mr. Trump said that “I’ll let you know,” adding: “We’re making a speech, you probably heard.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    He’s the Face of a White House Press Corps Under Attack by Trump

    Eugene Daniels, president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, is pushing back on the administration’s hostility to reporters as he navigates a move to MSNBC from Politico.Eugene Daniels didn’t plan on being the face of the White House press corps in the dawn of a new administration hostile to the news media.But because of a clause in the bylaws of the White House Correspondents’ Association, an 800-strong group of journalists who report on the president, he was next in line after Kaitlan Collins, the CNN star who was elected 2024-25 president of the association, had to step aside because of a move to New York.Mr. Daniels, 36, a co-author of Politico’s Playbook newsletter, has now emerged as a key figure in an escalating fight between the Trump White House and the news media over press access and freedom. And he’s balancing his role at the association, which is unpaid volunteer work, with his career, moving this month to a new on-air job at MSNBC.“We’re all competitors, fierce competitors, and the White House beat is tough, but at the same time, when it’s time to stand together, folks actually do that,” Mr. Daniels said of the correspondents’ association in an interview. “It’s unfortunate that this is where we are.”The Trump administration has made no secret of its contempt for reporters, but its actions in recent weeks have shocked many news outlets.President Trump first directed his communications team to bar The Associated Press from the press pool, a rotating group of reporters that travels with the president, and from spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One. That was in retaliation for The A.P.’s continued use of “Gulf of Mexico” after Mr. Trump’s executive order to change the geographical name to Gulf of America. (Dozens of media outlets, including CNN, The New York Times and Fox News, protested the decision, and The A.P. has filed a First Amendment lawsuit.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Transgender Rights Are Human Rights

    More from our inbox:‘I Am So Sorry’Lying to ChildrenThe Education Department said it would investigate two colleges that have been caught up in disputes regarding transgender athletes.Demetrius Freeman/ReutersTo the Editor:Re “Pain Is the Point of Trump’s Transgender Policy,” by Jennifer Finney Boylan (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 18):For most of my life I feared what would happen if anyone knew that I experienced a full spectrum of both feminine and masculine expressions. The shame began when I was a small child and followed me throughout much of my life. Even so I did not grow up with a fear of my government. America was a work in progress.I have seen rights gradually extended to women, racial minorities and sexual minorities, including trans and nonbinary people. However, today I find myself joining the rapidly growing ranks of innocent Americans who get up each morning fearing their own government.By targeting trans and nonbinary people, our president seeks to secure unchecked power at the expense of the vulnerable and innocent. Scapegoating minorities is a tried and true model for dictators throughout history. Here President Trump joins the likes of Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orban by manufacturing a perceived threat from an innocent minority, which will eventually justify restrictions on civil rights for everyone.I have listened to his calls for a return to a time when there were only two genders. That was also a time when America freely and openly discriminated against women, people of color, Jews and others. The fact is there have never been just two genders. Many societies accepted us, and even those that tried to ban us recognized our existence in those very bans.We will not disappear again into the shadows. We will resist, those who love us will resist, and those who are decent will resist. As long as we do so, the ideal that all Americans are created equal will not fade, that this country might endure and grow once again.Mark PetersenPark City, UtahTo the Editor:Re “Trump’s Shameful Campaign Against Transgender Americans” (editorial, Feb. 16):The Trump administration’s attacks on transgender and nonbinary individuals compromise our safety and attempt to strip us of our rights and our humanity. These policies aren’t just cruel — they are also deeply un-American.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Is Breaking Things We Can’t Just Fix

    President Trump is doing damage to America that could take a generation or more to repair. The next election cannot fix what Trump is breaking. Neither can the one after that.To understand the gravity of the harm Trump has inflicted on the United States in the first month and a half of his presidency, a comparison with the Cold War is helpful. Republicans and Democrats often had sharp differences in their approach to the Soviet Union — very sharp. The parties would differ, for example, on the amount of military spending, on the approach to arms control and on American military interventions against Soviet allies and their proxies.Deep disagreement over Vietnam helped drive American political debate, both within and between parties, for more than a decade. During the Reagan era, there were fierce arguments over the MX, a powerful intercontinental ballistic missile, and over the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe.These differences were important, but they were less important than the many points of agreement. Both parties were committed to NATO. Both parties saw the Soviet Union as the grave national security threat it was. For decades, both parties were more or less committed to a strategy of containment that sought to keep Soviet tyranny at bay.At no point did Americans go to the polls and choose between one candidate committed to NATO and another candidate sympathetic to the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The very idea would have been fantastical. American elections could reset our national security strategy, but they did not change our bedrock alliances. They did not change our fundamental identity.Until now.Consider what happened in the Oval Office on Friday. Trump and Vice President JD Vance ambushed President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine on live television. Vance accused Zelensky of being “disrespectful,” and Trump attacked him directly:You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III. You’re gambling with World War III and what you’re doing is very disrespectful to the country — this country — that’s backed you far more than a lot of people say they should.Trump’s attack on Zelensky is just the latest salvo against our allies. Back in office, Trump has taught our most important strategic partners a lesson they will not soon forget: America can — and will — change sides. Its voters may indeed choose a leader who will abandon our traditional alliances and actively support one of the world’s most dangerous and oppressive regimes.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Judge Rules Trump Can’t Fire Head of Federal Watchdog Agency Without Cause

    A federal judge said that the president’s efforts to remove Hampton Dellinger, who leads the Office of Special Counsel, were unlawful.A federal judge in Washington on Saturday blocked the Trump administration from ousting the top official at a federal watchdog agency, finding that its efforts to do so were unlawful.In an order on Saturday evening, Judge Amy Berman Jackson granted a permanent injunction against the government, allowing Hampton Dellinger to remain the head of the watchdog agency, the Office of Special Counsel. The order required the Trump administration to recognize Mr. Dellinger’s authority in that position, barring it from taking any action to “treat him in any way as if he has been removed” or otherwise interfere with his work.The administration immediately indicated it would challenge the ruling, starting an appeals process that appeared likely to end at the Supreme Court.In a 67-page opinion explaining the order, Judge Jackson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, stressed the unique responsibilities Congress gave the office when it was created under a 1978 law. She noted its central role in protecting whistle-blowers in the federal government, a role that she said would be compromised if Mr. Dellinger were allowed to be removed without a cause stipulated under the law. The judge had earlier put a temporary block on the firing.“It is his independence that qualifies him to watch over the time-tested structure that is supposed to bar executive officials from taking federal jobs from qualified individuals and handing them out to political allies — a system that Congress found intolerable over a century ago,” she wrote. The ruling came a week after the Supreme Court declined to intervene in the temporary block on removing Mr. Dellinger. Lawyers for the government argued to the court that Mr. Trump had the authority as the head of the executive branch to place his preferred pick in charge of the office. More

  • in

    Trump Signs Order to Designate English as Official Language of the U.S.

    The order did not require changes to federal programs but was a victory for America’s English-only movement, which has ties to efforts to restrict immigration and bilingual education.President Trump signed an order designating English as the official language of the United States, the White House said on Saturday.The order did not require any changes to federal programs and appeared to be largely symbolic. But the pronouncement was the biggest victory yet for the country’s English-only movement, which has long been tied to efforts to restrict bilingual education and immigration to the United States.More than 30 states have already designated English as their official language.“Establishing English as the official language will not only streamline communication but also reinforce shared national values, and create a more cohesive and efficient society,” the order said.The executive order rescinds a Clinton-era mandate that required agencies and recipients of federal funding to provide language assistance to non-English speakers, but allows agencies to keep current policies and provide documents and services in other languages.While more than three-quarters of Americans speak only English at home, there are about 42 million Spanish speakers in the country and three million Chinese speakers.The White House appeared eager to deliver on another of Mr. Trump’s “America First” promises, but the order was notable in its lack of sweeping changes. G.O.P. officials have in recent years mixed nativist calls with outreach to Spanish-speaking voters, with whom they have made gains.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Picks Another Trade Fight With Canada Over Lumber

    The president initiated an investigation that could lead to tariffs on lumber imports, nearly half of which comes from Canada.President Trump on Saturday initiated an investigation into whether imports of lumber threaten America’s national security, a step that is likely to further inflame relations with Canada, the largest exporter of wood to the United States.The president directed his commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, to carry out the investigation. The results of the inquiry could allow the president to apply tariffs to lumber imports. A White House official declined to say how long the inquiry would take.An executive memorandum signed by Mr. Trump ordered the investigation and was accompanied by another document that White House officials said would expand the volume of lumber offered for sale each year, increasing supply and helping to ensure that timber prices do not rise.The trade inquiry is likely to further anger Canada. Some of its citizens have called for boycotts of American products over Mr. Trump’s plans to impose tariffs on all Canadian imports beginning on Tuesday. The president, who also plans to hit Mexico with similar tariffs, says the levies are punishment for failure to stem the flow of drugs and migrants into the United States.Many Canadians have contested Mr. Trump’s assertion that fentanyl is flowing from its country into the United States.Canada and the United States have sparred over protections in the lumber industry for decades. The countries have protected their own industries with tariffs and other trade measures, and argued about the legitimacy of those measures in disputes both under the North American Free Trade Agreement and at the World Trade Organization.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More